About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
ronald reagan not making the case for immigration, but for amnesty, using that word. republicans are pro-immigration but they have been afraid of the past six years of the anti- immigration law me. immigration lobby. now i think this election cycle has dramatically changed that. i can at least number half a dozen radio and tv talk shows that have already said, you know what, my position has evolved, now time for immigration reform. now -- i am for immigration reform. that is good, because it will give cover for republicans who have avoided this issue and want to deal with this issue to actually do it. immigration and being for immigration reform is the conservative position. restrictionism part of the nationalist protectionist paradigm t. if we are the party of the family and a free-market, the gop is, we should not in any way have a restrictionist position. if we are for the family, i don't see why we should be calling for supporting hundreds of thousands of families and in this country -- operating hundreds of thousands of families in this country. many have been here for decades. why
was a speechwriter for ronald reagan. we have worked closely on a wide range of things. and i just told him, mr. speaker, since i'm leaving congress, he's taught me one thing and one thing only, and that is how to make margaritas. with that i'm happy to yield to my friend, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of the rule and this legislation and note that the classified nature of that margarita formula should never be disclosed to an enemy of the united states, of course, but we will be glad to transmit that information to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. in the spirit of bipartisanship. i do rise in support of this rule and h.r. 6156. the legislation to grant permanent normal trade relations status to russia. during the 19 0's as was just mentioned, i worked for ronald reagan in the white house and was part of a team dedicating itselves to bring down the soviet dictatorship. i might add that dave dryor was a member of that team. today's russia is not yesterday's soviet union. that's the most i
's daughter, understood conservatism or ronald reagan, the alcoholic son that grew up in middle america who actually believed, like i believe, like a lot of conservatives believe that if you want to help everybody, if you want to help the 100%, what you want to do is you want to fight hard for their individual free am do doms and unshackle them from regulations from high taxes, from a centralized state, and that's the best way to move forward. we can have a debate over whether that's right or wrong. the problem is, we didn't have that debate this time because mitt romney's view was such an insulated view of a guy who grew up rich and grew up in this insular world where his father ran car companies and was governor of michigan. >> this is a pivot point for the republican party. i think bobby jindal probably said it best. you have to turn -- you have to marry conservatism and pop y lyh populism. we helped the little guy because that's the america dream. it's not the opposite as far as entitlements and victims. that's a pivot point. and the republicans that get it are going to be part of a new
the republican party become a party again the way it was during ronald reagan? i feel that the republican party is just slowly and slowly becoming smaller and smaller and smaller party began throwing people out like me for approval to become republicans and you're not a real republican and things like that and the democratic party is doing the opposite. they were the small party, very small when the 70's and 80's and now they are the inclusive party. latinos are bringing in -- well, the blacks before hand bringing all these other groups in the republican party to switch and start to be more of an inclusive party. >> why don't we take the first question first and come back and close. >> the h-1b visa and the whole process is totally broken. the entire agricultural community, the entire community from growing fruits and such tools to working or anything come agricultural rights thousands and thousands are applied for less than 2% of the work force is improved, visa and a lot of the migratory while baseball there is a 50% work force with 100 percent of their visas are approved. who doesn't work fo
, that is true. when ronald reagan was president we had most -- we had about 10% or so out of marriage. now we are looking at 40% out of marriage. we have become a very different country. we have also become a country that expects to get benefits. when you expect to get benefits, somebody has to deliver those benefits. stuart: has president obama encouraged that by giving more stuff and encouraging people to vote for the guy that gives you more stuff? >> well, he has put it on steroids. it is not overnight that this has happened. we have filled out these ideas in our youth, especially through our government schools that they are entitled to benefit. what we have seen in the last four years is much more activity. when you have peter and paul and it is okay to take from peter to pay paul, then, yes, you have more false. stuart: you will not disagree with this, will you, charles? >> absolutely not. stuart: i did not know what we do about this. i am saying that society has changed. we are now a nation of takers. how do we change that, charles? >> everyone wants free stuff. i am sure i get your att
to make a comment about this benghazi thing. republicans have made such a big deal out of it. ronald reagan sent over 200 marines to their death and there was no public outrage. where is the republican outrage? only because of obama do we get this kind of reaction. thank you. host: edward, from miami, florida, this morning. another editorial, from being west, former infantryman. host: that is from the former assistant secretary of defense. we're taking your calls on this issue. b.j., good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, who is joe kelly? why would brought well be sending her threatening e-mails? -- broadwell be sending her a threat in e-mails? host: do you think the senate needs to hold a hearing on this? caller: absolutely. i look forward to his testimony under oath this time, rather than giving the cock and bull story from before. it is all because of the video tape. now he cannot be blackmailed by anyone. host: joe kelly is described as a 37-year-old social liaison at the air force base in tampa. host: did he have an affair with her? is that when he was so upset? --
for being here at ronald reagan international airport. as we look at the holiday fast approaching, thanksgiving next week, we are anticipating a busy travel seasons once again and the men and women of t.s.a. are standing at the ready to provide the most effective security in the most efficient way. this year we're anticipating over 24 million passengers traveling during the thanksgiving holiday period, and as you know, that can create both challenges and opportunities for the traveling public especially those that travel infrequently. so part of the reason of being here today is to ask those infrequent travelers to visit the t.s.a. website to understand the screening process in a way that will help all those others in line to deal with the longer lines that we usually see. this has been a busy and productive year for t.s.a. as we've focused on developing and testing and implementing a number of what we call risk-based security initiatives. things that are enabling understand to again provide the most effective security
of the money here, but to be the big problems have been the trade agreements, starting with ronald reagan, the outsourcing of our jobs. there are a lot of people trying to live and $10 an hour while they are getting social security, medicare, taking out of their money, and then they are told by people like paul ryan and mitt romney that that is an entitlement. to me, that is like more of a ponzi scheme if they take that away. getting back to the elephant in the room, until we start talking about structurally change in this country beyond fighting over taxes -- you can fight over moving around the chairs on the titanic, but what really needs to be done is we need to repeal the trade agreement, look at taxing goods from china, and we need to get jobs back into this country, manufacturing jobs with wages people can live on and pressure for wages to go up. right now, the pressure is for wages to go down. you are fighting over what is less of the money coming in. host: let's go to the congressman. guest: this is an important issue that was fought over in the campaign. we need to support manufa
like ronald reagan, i'm not sure you can do that again. some of those policies were probably responsible for what happened in the '80s. those aren't going to happen this time. >> no, in the '90s, you mean. >> no, in the '80s. if jimmy carter had been reelected i'm not sure we would've had a great period in the 1980s. i'm not sure it's our birthright to have another great -- >> well, that was the whole thing. >> mike's not going anywhere. we're going to continue our conversation with him. up next, though, stocks you need to have in your portfolio for 2013 regardless of whether the economy spirals off the fiscal cliff. that means growth companies with lots of cash to buy back stock. the details on that next. but first, take a look at shares of abercrombie today. earnings sharply better than the street forecast. a & f raising guidance, stock trading higher on that news. and michael jeffries, the ceo of that company, got that airplane. what's the song they play on the airplane? it says "take me home"? take a look at futures this morning, s&p 500 looks like it'll open up about six
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)